Ursinus and God's Will

[Flynn]

I just found these in my notes.

Can anyone verify these from a good and reputable Dutch or Latin translation. I am using the English Willard translation.

1)

What is the cause of the difference between the church and the rest of mankind? There are three classes of men in the world, which differ very much from each other. There are some, who by their own avowed declarations, are so entirely alienated from the church as to deny the necessity of faith and repentance, and are, therefore, the avowed enemies of God and the church. There are others again who are called, but not effectually, as hypocrites, who make a profession of faith without any true conversion to God. And finally, there are others who are effectually called, as are the elect, of which class there is but a comparatively small number, according to the declaration of Christ: " Many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt. 20:16.)

What now is the cause of this difference? The efficient cause of this difference is the election of God, who purposes to gather to himself in this world a church. The Son of God is the mediate executor of the will of the Father, whilst the Holy Ghost is the immediate executor. The word of God is the instrumental cause: "God in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." "God hath mercy, upon whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth." "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me." "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called," &c. (Acts 14:16. Rom. 9:18; 8:23, 30. John 6:37.) We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe. God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation. "But the election hath obtained it, (this salvation) and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11:7.) Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21, Q 54, S 6, p., 292.

2)

Obj. 1. But the promise of grace is universal. Ans. It is universal in respect to the faithful, that is, it extends to all those that believe. And it is particular in respect to all men. Our adversaries, however, deny that it is universal, because, say they, those who are converted may fall away, which is to weaken the general promise.

To this it is objected, that God wills that all men should be saved. (2- Tim. 2 : 4.) We reply, that there are other passages which must be taken in connection with this: such as these: "Many are called, but few are chosen." "This people’s heart is waxed gross, saith the Lord, lest they should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt. 20:16; 13:15.) Here it is declared that God wills that some should not be saved. Are we then to infer, that these declarations of divine truth contradict each other? God forbid! God wills that all men should be saved, in as far a he rejoices in the salvation of all: and he rejoices in the punishment of the wicked, yet not; in as far as it is the torment of his creatures; but in as much as it is the execution of his justice. God wills that all should be saved, in as much as he, in a certain respect, invites, and calls all to repentance, but he does not will the salvation of all, as it respects the efficacy of this calling. He blesses all, "if haply they might feel after him, and find him:" (Acts 17:27.) He invites all, and says to all; Honesty and obedience are pleasing to me, and due to me from you; but he does not say to all, I will produce this honesty, and obedience in you; but to the elect alone, and that because, from everlasting it has so pleased him." The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11 : 7.) Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21, Q 54, S 6, p., 292.

Some of the sentence connections just seem to hang there. What does look interesting is that in the first one, he connects desire with the willing. God wills the salvation of all on the account that God desires all to be saved and because he invites all. Is the Dutch clearer?

Thanks,
David

[Bert Mulder]

could not help myself, got to point this out:

From the above:

We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe

Thus not a promise of grace to everyone, but to everyone that believes

He is here putting to text what I have been saying all along.

[mayflower]

could not help myself, got to point this out:

From the above:

We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe

Thus not a promise of grace to everyone, but to everyone that believes

He is here putting to text what I have been saying all along.

To added, that "believe" is a gift which has been giving to the elected alone.

[Flynn]

could not help myself, got to point this out:
From the above:

We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe

Thus not a promise of grace to everyone, but to everyone that believes
He is here putting to text what I have been saying all along.

Hey Bert,

A few things, even if this mean what you think it means, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

Context is always good. Here he means the promise extended, applied to men, ie to believers only.

a page later he says this:

Obj. 1. But the promise of grace is universal. Ans. It is universal in respect to the faithful, that is, it extends to all those that believe. And it is particular in respect to all men. Our adversaries, however, deny that it is universal, because, say they, those who are converted may fall away, which is to weaken the general promise. p., 296.

What does that underlned comment mean?

Also, his opponent is a true universalist, who says that every man will literally and actually be saved, irrespective of whether they believe or not. Ursinus, Paraeus and Kimedoncius battled relentlessly against these men, some where Socinians, some were Lutherans (who had exceeded orthodox Lutheranism).

and again:

But what if his grace does not extend to thee, and thou art not of the number of those who are the Lord's? Ans. But I know that grace does extend to me, and that I am Christ s ; because the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God; and because I have true faith, for the promise is general, extending to all them that believe p 20.

Now from my file. Because there are so many, I will just list the pages from the Willard edition, Ursinus:

In the promises which they make to man. The law promises life
upon the condition of perfect obedience; the gospel, on the condition of faith in Christ and the commencement of new obedience. p., 3.

There is but one covenant, because the principal conditions, which are called the substance of the covenant, are the same before and since the incarnation of Christ; for in each testament God promises to those that repent and believe, the remission of sin; whilst men bind themselves, on the other hand, to exercise faith in God, and to repent of their sins. p., 99.

2. In the promise of grace concerning the remission of sins, and eternal life granted freely to such as believe by and for the sake of Christ, which promise was common to those who lived under the old covenant, as well as to us; although it is now delivered more clearly, for God promises the same grace to all that believe in the Mediator. "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." " I will be a God unto thee and thy seed." "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." (Gen. 3:15; 17:7. John 3:36. Acts 15;11.) We here speak of the promise of grace in general, and not of the circum stances of grace particularly.

3. In the condition in respect to ourselves. In each covenant, God requires from men faith and obedience. " Walk before me and be thou perfect." "Repent and believe the gospel." (Gen. 17:1. Mark 1:15.) The new covenant, therefore, agrees with the old in that which relates to the principal conditions, both on the part of God, and on the part of man. p., 99.

But the gospel teaches us in what manner we may be made such as the law lequires: for it offers unto us the promise of grace, by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith, and that in such a way as if it were properly ours, teaching us that we are just before God, through the imputation of Christ's righteousness. p., 104.

God is immutable; 1. In his essence. 2. In his will. 3. As it respects place, because he is immense. Obj. 1. But God is said to have repented of those things which he did. Ans. This is spoken figuratively. Obj. 2. God has often promised and threatened things which he did not perform. Ans. These promises and threatenings were always conditional. Obj. 3. But God changes his precepts, observances, and works. Ans. He changes them according to his eternal decree. p., 126.

There are some who interpret these general declarations of the whole number of the faithful, or of all that believe; because the promises of the gospel properly belong to all those that believe, and because the Scriptures do often restrict them to such as believe. p., 222.

Obj. 1. The promises of the gospel are universal, as appears from such declarations as invite all men to come to Christ, that they may have life. Hence it does not merely extend to such as believe. Ans. The promise is indeed universal in respect to such as repent and believe; but to extend it to the reprobate, would be blasphemy. " p., 224.

[David: What he means is that the substance of the promise is not extendable to the reprobate, not that there is no conditional offer of the promise, at all.]

In discussing the subject of the sacraments we must especially consider what, to whom, and how God offers and communicates in them. As it re spects the wicked, although God also offers them his benefits in the sacraments, yet they receive nothing more than the naked signs, and these to their own judgment, and condemnation, in as much as they are destitute of faith. This is proven: 1. Because the benefits of Christ are received only in the proper use of the sacraments. But the wicked do not use them properly, for they receive them unworthily, having no faith, or repentance. Hence the apostle Paul says: " Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11: 27.) The ungodly now eat and drink unworthily, because they profane the sacraments. 2. To whom there is nothing promised in the word, to him the sacraments seal nothing. But the word promises nothing to the wicked; for all the promises of the gospel are made upon the condition of repentance, and faith. The sacraments, therefore, neither seal, nor confer any thing upon the ungodly. As a charter promises certain things to certain persons, and as the sign which is appended thereto promises the same things to the same individuals, and to none else; so God also bestows his benefits in the same manner, and to the same persons to whom he promises them. But God has promised nothing to the ungodly as long as they continue in their unbelief. 3. We receive spiritual things by faith. But the ungodly have no faith. Therefore they do not receive any spiritual things. 4. To be ungodly and yet receive the thing signified in the sacraments implies a contradiction. p., 351.

He that believeth: The condition of faith is joined to the promise; for those who are baptized do not receive that which is promised and sealed by baptism unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit. In these words we have expressed in a concise manner the proper use of baptism, in which the sacraments are always ratified to those who receive them in faith; whilst the sacraments are no sacraments, and profit nothing in their improper use. p., 363.

As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as the law requires, viz: by faith in Christ. 3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us : the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In their effects. The law works wrath and is the ministration of death : the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit. (Rom. 4 : 15. 2 Cor. 3:7.) p., 497-498.

[David, his wording here is just about identical to somethnig Verrmigli says in his Romans commentary.]

Obj. 1. But the children of many pious persons perish. Ans. The promise is conditional: for God declares in the 18th chapter of Ez., that he will be merciful to the children of the godly if they persevere in the obedience of their fathers, and that he will punish them if they turn away from it. p., 535.

[for interests sake: conditonal covenant]:

A covenant in general is a mutual contract, or agreement between two parties, in which the one party binds itself to the other to accomplish some thing upon certain conditions, giving or receiving something, which is accompanied with certain outward signs and symbols, for the purpose of ratifying in the most solemn manner the contract entered into, and for the sake of confirming it, that the engagement may be kept inviolate. From this general definition of a covenant, it is easy to perceive what we are to understand by the Covenant here spoken of, which we may define as a mutual promise and agreement, between God and men, in which God gives assurance to men that he will be merciful to them, remit their sins, grant unto them a new righteousness, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life by and for the sake of his Son, our Mediator. And, on the other side, men bind them selves to God in this covenant that they will exercise repentance and faith. or that they will receive with a true faith this great benefit which God offers, and render such obedience as will be acceptable to him. This mu tual engagement between God and man is confirmed by those outward signs which we call sacraments, which are holy signs, declaring and sealing unto us God s good will, and our thankfulness and obedience. p., 97

Tell me what you think of these Bert.

David

[Flynn]

He is here putting to text what I have been saying all along.

I have been working on this the last two days. I am going to blog this and more. Some of these you have seen before:

Will of God:

1) Obj. 3. What God desires us to do, we have the power of doing. God desires us to do that which contributes to our well-being. Therefore, we have the ability, of ourselves, to do that which is good, and consequently do not need the grace and influence of the Holy Spirit. Ans. There is in this syllogism, an incorrect chain of reasoning, arising from the ambiguity of the word desire. In the major, it is used in its ordinary and proper sense. But in the minor, it is used improperly; for God is here said to desire, through a figure of speech, by which he is represented as being affected after the manner of men. Hence, there is a different kind of affirmation in the major from what there is in the minor God desires in two respects. First, in respect to his commandments and invitations. Secondly, in respect to the love which he cherishes towards his creatures, and the torments of those that perish, but not in respect to the execution of his justice. Reply. He who invites others to do that which is good, and rejoice in their well-doing, declares that it is in their power to do this, and not in the power of him who invites. But God invites us to do that which is good, and approves of our conduct when we thus act. Therefore, it is in our power to do the good. Ans. We deny the minor proposition; because it is not sufficient for God to invite. It is also necessary that our wills consent to do the good, which they will not do unless God incline them. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 3, Q 7, S 3, pp., 63-64.

2) Merciful. God's mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice. Obj. 2. He refuses mercy to the ungodly. Ans. Only to such as do not repent. Obj. 3. He does not save all when he has the power. Ans. God acts thus that he may exhibit his justice with his mercy. Obj. 4. He does not exercise his mercy without a sufficient satisfaction. Ans. Yet he has most freely given his Son, that he might make satisfaction by his death. Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 8, Q 25, S 2, p., 127.

3) What is the cause of the difference between the church and the rest of mankind?

There are three classes of men in the world, which differ very much from each other. There are some, who by their own avowed declarations, are so entirely alienated from the church as to deny the necessity of faith and repentance, and are, therefore, the avowed enemies of God and the church. There are others again who are called, but not effectually, as hypocrites, who make a profession of faith without any true conversion to God. And finally, there are others who are effectually called, as are the elect, of which class there is but a comparatively small number, according to the declaration of Christ: "Many are called, but few are chosen." (Matt. 20:16.)

What now is the cause of this difference? The efficient cause of this difference is the election of God, who purposes to gather to himself in this world a church. The Son of God is the mediate executor of the will of the Father, whilst the Holy Ghost is the immediate executor. The word of God is the instrumental cause: "God in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." "God hath mercy, upon whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth." "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me." "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called," &c. (Acts 14:16. Rom. 9:18; 8:23, 30. John 6:37.) We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe. God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation. "But the election hath obtained it, (this salvation) and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11:7.) Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21, Q 54, S 6, p., 292.

4) Obj. 1. But the promise of grace is universal. Ans. It is universal in respect to the faithful, that is, it extends to all those that believe. And it is particular in respect to all men. Our adversaries, however, deny that it is universal, because, say they, those who are converted may fall away, which is to weaken the general promise.

To this it is objected, that God wills that all men should be saved. (2 Tim. 2:4.) We reply, that there are other passages which must be taken in connection with this: such as these: "Many are called, but few are chosen." "This people’s heart is waxed gross, saith the Lord, lest they should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matt. 20:16; 13:15.) Here it is declared that God wills that some should not be saved. Are we then to infer, that these declarations of divine truth contradict each other? God forbid! God wills that all men should be saved, in as far a he rejoices in the salvation of all: and he rejoices in the punishment of the wicked, yet not; in as far as it is the torment of his creatures; but in as much as it is the execution of his justice. God wills that all should be saved, in as much as he, in a certain respect, invites, and calls all to repentance, but he does not will the salvation of all, as it respects the efficacy of this calling. He blesses all, "if haply they might feel after him, and find him:" (Acts 17:27.) He invites all, and says to all; Honesty and obedience are pleasing to me, and due to me from you; but he does not say to all, I will produce this honesty, and obedience in you; but to the elect alone, and that because, from everlasting it has so pleased him."The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11:7.) Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 21, Q 54, S 7, p., 295.

God wills obedience:

Obj. 4. God made man fallible; nor did he establish him in the good ness in which he created him. Therefore, it was according to his will that man sinned. Ans. The Scriptures rebuke and put to silence this froward ness of men wickedly curious, saying, "Who art thou that repliest against God,"for Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker." (Rom. 9:20. Is. 45:9.) Unless man had been created fallible, there would have been no praise attaching itself to his work, or virtue; for he would have been good from necessity. And what if it had been proper that man should have been thus created? The very nature of God required it to be thus. God does not give his glory to any creature. Adam was a man, and not God. And as God is good, so is he also just. He does good to men, but he wills that they be obedient and grateful to him. He bestowed innumerable benefits upon man; therefore, it behooved him to be thankful, obedient, and subject to God, who has declared, in his law, what would be pleasing to him, and what would not. saying, "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat, lest thou die." (Gen. 2 : 17.) As if he would say, thou shalt have respect to me, adhere to me, serve and obey me ; thou shalt not ask and seek rules of good and evil from any one else than from me ; thou shalt thus show thyself obedient to me. Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 3, Q 7, S 4, p., 54.

God’s Two-fold will:

1) Almighty, To believe in God Almighty, is to believe in such a God: 1. Who is able to accomplish whatever he wills, yea even those things which he does not will, if they are not contrary to his nature, as he might have delivered Christ from death, but he would not. 2. Who can accomplish all things by his simple command, and without any difficulty. 8. Who alone has power to do all things, and is the dispenser of that power which is in all his creatures. 4. Who is also almighty for my benefit, and can and will direct and make all things subservient to my salvation. Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 9, Q 26, p., 140-141.

2)

The third objection is in respect to contradictory wills.

He who, in his secret counsel, wills and prohibits by his law the same work, in him there are contradictory wills. But in God there are no contradictory wills. Therefore he does not, by his secret determination, will those things which he prohibits in his law, as robbery, murder, lust, theft, &c. Ans. 1. We grant the whole argument in as far as these things are done by creatures contrary to the law, and are sins. In this sense God neither wills nor approves of them, but only in as far as they are certain motions and punishments of the wicked. 2. We must make a distinction in reference to the major proposition ; for it is contradictory to say he wills and forbids the same work in the same respect, and with the same end. God wills and forbids the same things, but in a different respect, and with a different end. He willed, for instance, the selling of Joseph in as far as it was the occasion of his elevation, the preservation of the family of Jacob and the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning the bondage of the seed of Abraham in Egypt. But in as far as he was sent away by the hatred of his brethren, he did not will it. but denounced arid condemned it as horrible fratricide. And so of the other examples we have adduced. Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 10, Q 27, S 1, p., 161.

The real issue Bert, is that Ursinus said that God wills the salvation of all, and in can be truly said to desire the salvation of all in some sense. And on top of that he offers and invites.

Take care,
David

[Bert Mulder]

Same old same old

Do you actually READ what you post?

[Flynn]

Same old same old

Do you actually READ what you post?

I am open to being educated.

David

[Polemicus]

could not help myself, got to point this out:

From the above:

We are taught by these declarations that the promise of grace is general in respect to those that believe

Thus not a promise of grace to everyone, but to everyone that believes

He is here putting to text what I have been saying all along.

Bert, as I pointed out, one can speak about conditions to offer grace, and conditions to enjoy it. In the true doctrine acording to the reformers, there are no conditions to offer grace to anyone, even if he/she is a monster of sin. Boston said:

“Er zijn sommige mensen in deze wereld, die vanwege hun monsterlijke verdorvenheid net duivels zijn. Er zijn anderen die in hun wildheid nauwelijks verschillen van een bruut. Maar de Heere zegt hier [‘Gaat heen in de gehele wereld, predikt het Evangelie alle kreaturen’ (Mark. 16:15)] in feite: ‘Wie ze ook mogen zijn, als u ze niet anders dan als mens kunt betitelen, stel hen dan geen vragen over welk soort mens ze zijn, maar predik hen het Evangelie omdat ze mensen zijn, bied hen het verbond aan. Als ze het in ontvangst nemen, verzegel het dan aan hen. Mijn Vader heeft hen gemaakt, Ik zal hen redden.’”

Translated: There are some people in this world, who by ther monsterous depravety are just like devils. There are others who in their wildness scarcely differ from a brute. But the Lord says hier (Mark. 16:15) in fact: 'Whoever they are, if you cannot qualify them else as man, don't ask questions what kind of man they are, but preach them the gospel because they are man, offer them the convenant. If they receive it, seal it to them. My Father has made them, I will save them.'

But to enjoy grace, one should receive the convenant. That's the condition. Simple, isn't it?

[Flynn]

G'day Bert,

I feel we are dancing around this. You are motivating me to pull out my files tho. This is an old one. Calvin says it all here. Can you tell me what would be the problem?

Calvin on conditional willing and conditional promises.

1)

Yet Pighius denies it, because the preconceived counsel concerning the salvation of all stands firm. As if there were no ready solution. Salvation was offered to all on the condition that they persisted in original innocence. For no sane person will allow that the decree of God that all should come to salvation was simple and absolute. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans., J.K. Reid (London: James Clark, 1961), 102

2)

VIII.2. God's will that all be saved

All this Pighius contradicts, adducing the opinion of Paul (I Tim 2.4): God wills all to be saved. That He does not will the death of a sinner is to be believed on His own oath where He says by the prophet: As I live, I do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live (Ezek 18.23, 33.11). But I contend that, as the prophet is exhorting to penitence, it is no wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be conditional. To the Ninevites, as also to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, God declared that He would do what He was not going to do. Since by repentance they averted the punishment promised to them, it is evident that it was not firmly decreed unless they remained obstinate. Yet the denunciation had been positive, as if it were an irrevocable decree. But after terrifying and humbling them with the sense of His wrath, though not to the point of despair, He cheers them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel there was room for remedy. So again with the promises which invite all men to salvation. They do not simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret I counsel but what He is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance. But, it is alleged, we thereby ascribe I a double will to God, whereas He is not variable and not the least shadow of turning falls upon Him. What is this, says Pighius, but to mock men, if God professes to will what He does not will? But if in fairness the two are read together: I will that the sinner turn and live, the calumny is dissolved without bother. God demands conversion from us; wherever He finds it, a man is not disappointed of the promised reward of life. Hence God is said to will life, as also repentance. But the latter He wills, because He invites all to it by His word. Now this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought variable, because as lawgiver He illuminates all with the external doctrine of life, in this first sense calling all men to life. But in the other sense, He brings to life whom He will, as Father regenerating by the Spirit only His sons. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans., J.K. Reid (London: James Clark, 1961), 105-106.

David: To be clear, the promise and offer is to all men, but it is a conditional offer and promise. Calvin is not saying that the promise is only offered to those who repent.

David

[Bert Mulder]

G'day Bert,

I feel we are dancing around this. You are motivating me to pull out my files tho. This is an old one. Calvin says it all here. Can you tell me what would be the problem?

Calvin on conditional willing and conditional promises.

1)

Yet Pighius denies it, because the preconceived counsel concerning the salvation of all stands firm. As if there were no ready solution. Salvation was offered to all on the condition that they persisted in original innocence. For no sane person will allow that the decree of God that all should come to salvation was simple and absolute. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans., J.K. Reid (London: James Clark, 1961), 102

2)

VIII.2. God's will that all be saved

All this Pighius contradicts, adducing the opinion of Paul (I Tim 2.4): God wills all to be saved. That He does not will the death of a sinner is to be believed on His own oath where He says by the prophet: As I live, I do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and live (Ezek 18.23, 33.11). But I contend that, as the prophet is exhorting to penitence, it is no wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be conditional. To the Ninevites, as also to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, God declared that He would do what He was not going to do. Since by repentance they averted the punishment promised to them, it is evident that it was not firmly decreed unless they remained obstinate. Yet the denunciation had been positive, as if it were an irrevocable decree. But after terrifying and humbling them with the sense of His wrath, though not to the point of despair, He cheers them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel there was room for remedy. So again with the promises which invite all men to salvation. They do not simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret I counsel but what He is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance. But, it is alleged, we thereby ascribe I a double will to God, whereas He is not variable and not the least shadow of turning falls upon Him. What is this, says Pighius, but to mock men, if God professes to will what He does not will? But if in fairness the two are read together: I will that the sinner turn and live, the calumny is dissolved without bother. God demands conversion from us; wherever He finds it, a man is not disappointed of the promised reward of life. Hence God is said to will life, as also repentance. But the latter He wills, because He invites all to it by His word. Now this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which He determined to convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought variable, because as lawgiver He illuminates all with the external doctrine of life, in this first sense calling all men to life. But in the other sense, He brings to life whom He will, as Father regenerating by the Spirit only His sons. John Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans., J.K. Reid (London: James Clark, 1961), 105-106.

David: To be clear, the promise and offer is to all men, but it is a conditional offer and promise. Calvin is not saying that the promise is only offered to those who repent.

David

Do you realize Mr. David Ponter, that you just stated here that the offer is a general conditional offer of salvation to all who hear? Do you mean that in the same sense as the Reformed Congregations of America (the Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland) (ie. the Dr. Steenblok churches)?

Ben je ervan bewust, Mr. David Pointer, dat je hier stelde dat het aanbood een algemeen VOORWAARDELIJK aanbod van genade is aan allen die horen? Bedoel je dat op de zelfde manier als de GGinN (de Dr. Steenblok kerken)?

[Flynn]

Do you realize Mr. David Ponter, that you just stated here that the offer is a general conditional offer of salvation to all who hear? Do you mean that in the same sense as the Reformed Congregations of America (the Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland) (ie. the Dr. Steenblok churches)?

Ben je ervan bewust, Mr. David Pointer, dat je hier stelde dat het aanbood een algemeen VOORWAARDELIJK aanbod van genade is aan allen die horen? Bedoel je dat op de zelfde manier als de GGinN (de Dr. Steenblok kerken)?

And that means what?
And on Calvin's affirmation of a conditional promise which is offered, you say what?

David

[Polemicus]

David, dr. Steenblok teached that the conditions to offer (not to enjoy, like Calvin) grace are repentance and faith. In this chronologic order: first repentance, then faith. We call it here de standenleer. First stand is: to be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and to no yet nothing of the Saviour. Then the sinner is on the toeleidende weg to Christ. This can last a long time and yet the sinner is qualified a regenerate and a child of God. The teaching is, that there is spiritual life and quickening without the knowledge of Christ, and it's all against the reformed conception, and - what is more important - against the biblical concepts of faith and regeneration. Sad but true the NRC (Gereformeerde Gemeente) has embraced this chronologic order to, while yet maitining the general, unconditional offer of grace. They say also that there has to be made room for the knowledge of Christ, after the regeneration, and that this can last a long time. Knowledge of Christ is the second stand, and not all Gods children have it. Following in this the later dr. Alexander Comrie.

[Polemicus]

For the sake of clarity, let me add to this topic, what Bert Mulder means with: conditional promises and conditional gospel. He means, thas the content of the gospel is actually the assurance to the elect, that theirs sins are forgiven, or a warrant that their debt is fully paid.

Here is the first error, as the gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ came in the world to save sinners. The gospel, acording to the Scriptures and the reformers is the message of Gods benevolence and good-will toward man. Like John 3:16 tells us. Combined with the following verses, it is clear that with the words 'the world' is meant: Gods creature, at least: all mankind.

The second error in the way Bert Mulder thinks, is, that the gospel in his concept is only applicable on the condition of faith and repentance (Gods gifts). So, he reasons, while these gifts (of repentance and faith) only are given to the elect, the gospel is only applicable to them. This way of reasoning is, like there would be a doctor with a cure, who invites all ill people to come to him, as it is his office to cure them. Now, only some come to him and are cured. If someone would draw the conclusion that the doctor, after his intend, was only willing to cure the people who came, that would be a shameful accusation. It would bring in discredit the good will of this doctor. So it is, in the way Bert (and rev. Miersma) reasons. It is obvious, that they let dominate all the doctrine by predestination. Not in a lawful way, but a priori and in a way that puts Gods lovingkindness at stake.

Here is, what a devine said about it:

"What is usualy answered to this argument (that the general remedy must underlay the general call) by some That God has not commanded His ministers to announce, that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the univerallity of the call, that the death of Christ is, according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all, seems to me to be said very inconsiderately. For faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them, but which makes the death of Christ, which is applicable to all from the devine loving-kindness to man, actually applied and benificial to individuals."

[Bert Mulder]

For the sake of clarity, let me add to this topic, what Bert Mulder means with: conditional promises and conditional gospel. He means, thas the content of the gospel is actually the assurance to the elect, that theirs sins are forgiven, or a warrant that their debt is fully paid.

Here is the first error, as the gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ came in the world to save sinners. The gospel, acording to the Scriptures and the reformers is the message of Gods benevolence and good-will toward man. Like John 3:16 tells us. Combined with the following verses, it is clear that with the words 'the world' is meant: Gods creature, at least: all mankind.

The second error in the way Bert Mulder thinks, is, that the gospel in his concept is only applicable on the condition of faith and repentance (Gods gifts). So, he reasons, while these gifts (of repentance and faith) only are given to the elect, the gospel is only applicable to them. This way of reasoning is, like there would be a doctor with a cure, who invites all ill people to come to him, as it is his office to cure them. Now, only some come to him and are cured. If someone would draw the conclusion that the doctor, after his intend, was only willing to cure the people who came, that would be a shameful accusation. It would bring in discredit the good will of this doctor. So it is, in the way Bert (and rev. Miersma) reasons. It is obvious, that they let dominate all the doctrine by predestination. Not in a lawful way, but a priori and in a way that puts Gods lovingkindness at stake.

Here is, what a devine said about it:

"What is usualy answered to this argument (that the general remedy must underlay the general call) by some That God has not commanded His ministers to announce, that Christ died for every individual, whether they believe or not, but only for believing and penitent sinners, and therefore it cannot be demonstrated from the univerallity of the call, that the death of Christ is, according to the ordination of God, an universal remedy applicable to all, seems to me to be said very inconsiderately. For faith is not previously required in mankind, as a condition, which makes Christ to have died for them, but which makes the death of Christ, which is applicable to all from the devine loving-kindness to man, actually applied and benificial to individuals."

No, Mr. Polemicus, you are misrepresenting the doctrine of the PRCA here, and making a caricature out of it. You know better!

To use your analogy: the Doctor indeed calls everyone that is sick to come to him, and be healed, and that for free. But the issue is that only those that know they are sick come to him. Most people think they are healthy, and do not need the Doctor. And thus they scorn the Doctor, and instead of loving Him for His generosity, they hate Him.

[Flynn]

David, dr. Steenblok teached that the conditions to offer (not to enjoy, like Calvin) grace are repentance and faith. In this chronologic order: first repentance, then faith. We call it here de standenleer. First stand is: to be convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit and to no yet nothing of the Saviour. Then the sinner is on the toeleidende weg to Christ. This can last a long time and yet the sinner is qualified a regenerate and a child of God. The teaching is, that there is spiritual life and quickening without the knowledge of Christ, and it's all against the reformed conception, and - what is more important - against the biblical concepts of faith and regeneration. Sad but true the NRC (Gereformeerde Gemeente) has embraced this chronologic order to, while yet maitining the general, unconditional offer of grace. They say also that there has to be made room for the knowledge of Christ, after the regeneration, and that this can last a long time. Knowledge of Christ is the second stand, and not all Gods children have it. Following in this the later dr. Alexander Comrie.

Hey Polemicus,

Ah thats interesting. I have never heard of that like that. I dont know a lot of about contemporary Dutch theology, or even recent (apart froms the American scene, Van Til etc). I know bits and pieces from the 19thC, up to Kuyper, Bavinck, Schilder, but thats about it. I have heard of Comrie.

What you describe here sounds a little like puritan preparationism. There is a long history of that. Preparationism was the idea that a sinner had to go through a process of conversion. This process could be mapped out and was basically the same for all. The terrors of the law, were to prepare the heart, a deep sense of sin, and when one attains a certain spiritual state, they could then be allowed to embrace Christ. The root of this was the older idea of the "sensible sinner." The thing that varied was the time-frame: this could take years or months, etc.

The idea of the "sensible sinner" was transformed in some circles and finally picked up by classic hypercalvinism where the gospel is only offered to those sensible of their sin, ie they could evidence their being regenerate etc. John Brine, John Gill, JC Philpot, William Huntington, etc, or of this line.

I notice you like Boston. John Brown of Hadow (I hope I have the right Brown), and Boston's opponents had picked up a form of hypercalvinism. That is why Boston affirms the free and unconditional offer of the gospel: against this background of pervasive preparationist theologies.

Thomas Hooker was the main developer of preparationism in Puritanism. Part of the preparationist mindset was in Cotton Mather, and others of New England, were the stress was on conversion experience etc.

This sort of subtle hypercalvinism was strong in the old Scottish churches, too. There are many stories of men and women unable to take communion or have any assurance because they had no "warrant" which could assure them of their right and interest in Christ.

Andrew Fuller refuted John Gill on the hypers. By preparatory evidences I could "warrant" my right and interest in the gospel and Christ. So in the end, all forms of preparationism one had to somehow acquire the conditions before one could embrace Christ.

At root of all the evolutions within the Anglo-Americans forms was the evolving doctrine of assurance, and the development of the "syllogismus practicus" or the practical syllogism. Which reminds me of Beeke's dissertation. Boston's doctrine of assurance connected with Calvin, Ursinus Musculus, and Vermigli's doctrine of assurance, and so thereby he bypassed all the preparationist and pseudo- preparationist theologies.

Is that like what you are describing? And is it related to Kuyperian presumptive regeneration?

Thanks for the info. I had no idea what Bert was alluding too. And besides, Calvin, like Ursinus affirms a conditional promise. I thought that comment from Ursinus on the sacrament was especially sharp.

By conditions, the classic reformed meant condition sine qua non, so that no man may imagine that even in his unrepentant rebellion, he could think that God would save him. So I am wondering how does Bert harmonise Ursinus and Calvin, then, with PRC denial of conditional promises?

To Bert, I am not familiar with some of the issues you have been dealing with, so it would help me if 1) you could be more explanatory, and 2) respond to me on the terms of the issues I have raised and not on the terms of other issues. I dont say that out of anger or anything, but just that we stay on topic.

Polemicus, thanks for the information,

Take care,
David